http://www.hronline.info/ Thu, 20 Nov 2008 00:36:27 +0800 MyBB http://www.hronline.info/showthread.php?tid=5 Wed, 05 Nov 2008 16:35:10 +0800 Justin http://www.hronline.info/showthread.php?tid=5 PETALING JAYA: Employees can choose to reduce their EPF contributions to increase their disposable income next year.
The Government has allowed employees to reduce their contributions by three percentage points from 2009 to 2011.
Presently, the employer’s EPF contribution is 12% while employees contribute 11%.
“With the reduction, the total contribution is still at a reasonable rate of 20%, which is 12% from the employer and 8% from employee,” said Deputy Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak.
Najib, who is also Finance Minister, said if all contributors chose to reduce their contributions, it would come up to RM4.8bil annually.
“Assuming that only 50% of contributors take up the option, private spending is expected to go up by RM2.4bil,” he said.
“A person earning RM2,000 could gain an extra disposable income of RM60 monthly, while one earning RM6,000 will have an extra RM180 to spend.”
On the RM5bil fund injection into government investing agency Valuecap to stimulate capital market activity, Najib said similar moves had been implemented in other countries such as the Tracker Fund in Hong Kong in 1998, and recently by Qatar Investment Authority and the largest pension fund in Korea.
“The extra fund is acquired from EPF loans which is guaranteed by the Government. Therefore, the loan does not only guarantee higher returns compared with deposit rates from banking institutions but is also a minimum risk investment to EPF,” he said.
But, some workers’ unions felt that savings will be reduced and it will affect the people’s retirement funds.
National Union of Bank Employees (NUBE) secretary general J. Solomon said he hoped that the voluntary offer was only for the time being during the economic crisis.
MTUC president Syed Shahir Syed Mohamud said that reduced savings would not benefit contributors.
“When savings go down it will be followed by a decrease in dividends.]]> PETALING JAYA: Employees can choose to reduce their EPF contributions to increase their disposable income next year.
The Government has allowed employees to reduce their contributions by three percentage points from 2009 to 2011.
Presently, the employer’s EPF contribution is 12% while employees contribute 11%.
“With the reduction, the total contribution is still at a reasonable rate of 20%, which is 12% from the employer and 8% from employee,” said Deputy Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak.
Najib, who is also Finance Minister, said if all contributors chose to reduce their contributions, it would come up to RM4.8bil annually.
“Assuming that only 50% of contributors take up the option, private spending is expected to go up by RM2.4bil,” he said.
“A person earning RM2,000 could gain an extra disposable income of RM60 monthly, while one earning RM6,000 will have an extra RM180 to spend.”
On the RM5bil fund injection into government investing agency Valuecap to stimulate capital market activity, Najib said similar moves had been implemented in other countries such as the Tracker Fund in Hong Kong in 1998, and recently by Qatar Investment Authority and the largest pension fund in Korea.
“The extra fund is acquired from EPF loans which is guaranteed by the Government. Therefore, the loan does not only guarantee higher returns compared with deposit rates from banking institutions but is also a minimum risk investment to EPF,” he said.
But, some workers’ unions felt that savings will be reduced and it will affect the people’s retirement funds.
National Union of Bank Employees (NUBE) secretary general J. Solomon said he hoped that the voluntary offer was only for the time being during the economic crisis.
MTUC president Syed Shahir Syed Mohamud said that reduced savings would not benefit contributors.
“When savings go down it will be followed by a decrease in dividends.]]> http://www.hronline.info/showthread.php?tid=4 Wed, 29 Oct 2008 18:09:46 +0800 Justin http://www.hronline.info/showthread.php?tid=4 Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., and Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., have zeroed in on the importance of reducing health care costs as an important component of their respective health reform proposals to expand health insurance coverage.

Though neither candidate has spelled out specific details - and won't until after the new administration is up-and-running - the general contours of their approaches are pretty clear. There are some common elements in the candidates' approaches. But the differences between the two candidates are stark. The commonalities and distinctions in the candidates' visions of health care reform will not only affect the future of health care, insurance and benefits but could have implications for talent recruitment and retention. Specifics on each candidate's plan follow.

Both candidates' health plans will:

a) Expand access to affordable coverage.
b) Expand use of health information technology.
c) Emphasize wellness, prevention and disease management.
d) Focus on managing chronic illness through coordinated care.
e) Reduce medical errors, improve quality and outcomes.
f) Make health insurance portable.

They differ in the:

a) Role of government vs. private market.
b) Role of employer coverage.
c) Covering the uninsured.
d) Use of coverage mandates.

Universal Coverage and Cost Containment

Some policy analysts argue universal coverage would produce savings by including everyone in the health care system and thereby reduce cost shifting and uncompensated care.

McCain is a strong supporter of market-based approaches to health care reform and increasing competition in the health care sector. He advocates steps to make health care coverage more accessible and affordable for all Americans, but stops short of advocating policies aimed at reaching universal coverage, as opposed to universal access, which he does support. He has criticized the Democrats for advocating government mandates on businesses and has not endorsed a mandate for individuals to purchase coverage.

As part of his strategy for cost containment, McCain believes "families should be in charge of their health care dollars and have more control over their care." He wants to encourage and expand the benefits of health savings accounts for families. "When families are informed about medical choices, they are more capable of making their own decisions and often decide against unnecessary options. Health savings accounts take an important step in the direction of putting families in charge of what they pay for."

McCain also advocates greater competition among health insurers by allowing individuals in the U.S. to buy a health insurance policy from a health insurer licensed in another state, thereby expanding choices of health plans and, potentially, the ability to purchase less costly health coverage.

Obama favors an approach he and others commonly refer to as "shared responsibility" that includes a larger federal government role than McCain's proposal. Obama said, under his plan, a typical family would save up to $2,500 in health insurance premiums per year. That would partly happen by making health insurance universal, which he believes will reduce spending on uncompensated care.

Obama supports a pay-or-play approach. "Employers that do not offer meaningful coverage or make a meaningful contribution to the cost of quality health coverage for their employees will be required to contribute a percentage of payroll toward the costs of the national plan." The national plan would be a public plan, with benefits modeled on the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program (FEHBP). His proposal also would require all children have health care coverage and would allow young people up to age 25 to continue coverage through their parents' plans.

To provide Americans with additional options, the Obama plan would establish a National Health Insurance Exchange to help individuals who wish to purchase a private insurance plan. Through the Exchange, any individual could enroll in a new public plan or purchase an approved private plan, with income-based federal subsidies for those who need them. Insurers would have to issue every applicant a policy with community-rated premiums.

The Exchange would require that all the plans offered be at least as generous as the new public plan - with FEHBP-like benefits - and meet the same standards for quality and efficiency. Insurers would be required to justify an above-average premium increase to the Exchange. The Exchange would evaluate plans and make the differences among the participating plans transparent including the cost of services.

Obama's health care plan also proposes to lower health insurance premiums by having the federal government assume a portion of the costs for high-cost cases, in effect lowering the risk of catastrophic costs that now fall on insurers, self-insured employers and individuals.

Tax Treatment of Health Insurance

Many health economists argue the current federal tax law provision, which excludes the value of employer-provided health insurance from an employee's taxable income, has contributed to the rising cost of health coverage.

Under current tax provisions, employees receiving health coverage from an employer plan may pay for their portion of premiums with pretax contributions and receive the value of the health coverage provided by the employer tax free.

Neither federal income tax nor payroll taxes - such as Social Security and Medicare - apply. Economists who favor repeal of the tax calculation, including those who are advising McCain, argue an unlimited tax exclusion raises the cost of health coverage by encouraging generous benefit plans to which medical providers can increasingly charge higher prices. They argue one of the effects of this cycle is some consumers are priced out of affordable insurance, resulting in more uninsured individuals.

McCain proposes to create a level playing field in the individual and group health insurance markets by equalizing the tax incentives for individuals who buy health insurance coverage on their own with those tax incentives available for individuals who get their coverage through an employer plan.

To do that, McCain would replace the current, unlimited tax exclusion for employer-provided health care coverage with a tax credit available to all individuals, in the amount of $2,500 for individuals and $5,000 for families. Pretax employee contributions and health care flexible spending arrangements (FSAs) would conceivably be eliminated under this approach.

The change in tax treatment also means an employee could go outside the employer health plan and receive the same tax benefit for buying individual coverage. An employee could still take advantage of the tax credit to pay for employer-provided coverage, but the value of any employer benefits in excess of the $2,500/$5,000 tax credit would be subject to federal income and payroll taxes.

The tax revenue generated by eliminating the current exclusion is intended to offset the cost of providing the tax credits. But it would probably result in winners and losers. According to the Kaiser Family Foundation, in 2007, the average total cost of employer-sponsored health insurance coverage was $4,479 for single coverage and $12,106 for family coverage - well above the amount of the proposed tax credit.

Obama has to date proposed no changes in the current tax treatment of health insurance coverage.

Retiree Health Benefits

Neither candidate has put forward a detailed plan to control the spiraling costs of the federal Medicare program.

But the candidates have suggested a few measures that could arguably produce cost-savings for the program, though not everyone agrees. McCain has proposed the federally financed subsidy for Medicare Part D prescription drug coverage be reduced for higher-income beneficiaries, in effect requiring such beneficiaries to pay a greater share of the costs. This approach already has a precedent. In 2007, income-based premiums for higher-income beneficiaries became a requirement under Medicare Part B. Obama advocates having Medicare directly negotiate pharmaceutical prices for Medicare beneficiaries, something not permitted under current law.

Concerning early retirees who have not yet reached the age for Medicare eligibility, the candidates believe this group will benefit from their broader proposals to expand health coverage access. Obama's plan to generate a wide array of new public and private plan options would potentially create new sources for pre-65 retirees to purchase health insurance.

Today, pre-65 retirees without employer coverage have few good options to purchase affordable health insurance, and providing health benefits to pre-65 retirees is costly for employers who do provide coverage. McCain said his reforms would create more flexible health insurance options and, consequently, would "automatically bridge the time between retirement and Medicare eligibility."

Talent Management Implications

Will employers and employees experience lower health care costs if the candidates' health reform proposals are fulfilled?

Will either candidate's proposal result in actual cost reduction? Some health policy analysts assert neither candidate's proposal gets very far to contain spiraling health care costs. Despite assertions to the contrary, it is unlikely there will be actual reductions below current spending levels for employers. While both proposals contemplate federal subsidies, the larger such subsidies are, the more likely it could result in additional taxes to finance them.

Realistically, the best employers and employees can hope for is a reduction in the rate of increase in future health care costs. Even that is largely uncertain, and most large employers have yet to be persuaded. So far, most tend to believe health care reform may actually raise national health care costs, not reduce them.

Are the candidates' proposals politically feasible? It takes more than a president to reform the health care system.

The composition of the new Congress and reactions of stakeholders, including employers and employees, will influence how far the reforms advance. For example, is it politically feasible Congress will eliminate the current tax exclusion for employer-provided health benefits to finance a replacement health care tax credit? Changing this long-standing tax policy would represent a dramatic change, with potentially significant political repercussions.

Is it feasible to achieve savings from universal coverage - and reduced cost shifting - if there are no mandates to maintain or provide coverage, or if the only mandates fall on large employers? There is a very vigorous policy debate regarding both the advantages and harms mandates impose, and the pros and cons of an individual mandate vs. an employer mandate.

What could the implications be of both candidates' assertions that their health reform plans will result in new options for individuals to obtain health insurance outside of the employer setting?

Employers may want to think carefully about the role health benefits play in their overall compensation, recruitment and retention strategies. Depending on the circumstances, some employers may decide to encourage employees to exercise their choices in the individual market or to enroll in some other form of public plan or plan offered via a health exchange. Fortunately, employers need not make sudden decisions. There would be sufficient time to weigh options, opportunities and their implications in terms of an organization's ability to attract and recruit talent.

Employers also would have an opportunity to provide oversight and leverage the quality of health care provided to employees and to reduce the time and effort required by employees to navigate health coverage choices in a new system that may look and function differently from what has long been familiar.

Depending on employers' decisions about new coverage options, the role and prominence of health benefits in recruitment and retention could shift. Survey data has consistently shown employees value health benefits more than any other benefit provided by employers. If an employer were to cease providing health coverage and substitute a contribution to a public plan option or toward the purchase of an individual, non-employer commercial plan, would employees view such a contribution as being a health benefit? Would they value it to the degree they value current employer-provided coverage? Many likely would not.

Gains in overall workforce health and productivity due to employee wellness and prevention strategies could be lost. If employees largely or exclusively seek coverage outside of employer-sponsored plans, innovative employer programs that promote preventive care, wellness and chronic condition management might be difficult to replicate. In addition, if employees purchase coverage on the individual market that provides lesser benefits and higher cost sharing, they may be more likely to sometimes forego needed care, resulting in decreased productivity, more frequent absences from work and/or presenteeism, and increased short-term disability claims.

The same may be true if access to medical providers through the health plans employees choose is more restricted or more time-consuming to access. If there is no individual mandate to buy coverage and an employer ceases to sponsor a health plan, how many employees will choose to go without coverage, and would that translate into negative workplace productivity effects?

Workforce management issues also may arise. For example, if a company does not offer retiree health benefits today and more purchasing options were made available for individuals to retire prior to reaching the age of Medicare eligibility, that policy change could induce more early retirements. At a time when the retirement of the baby-boom generation already may lead to a shortage of experienced talent, this development could exacerbate the anticipated talent shortage, and employers may need to consider additional strategies to retain those employees.

If, as envisioned under both candidates' proposals, health care coverage does become portable from job to job, that also could have positive and negative talent management impacts. On one hand, for employees who do not change jobs now out of fear of losing their employer-provided health coverage, portability of health insurance would open the door for them to consider other employment possibilities. Conversely, companies may find more of their talent pool is willing to jump to another employer or competitor.

Finally, one could anticipate compensation effects. If employer-provided health coverage is mandated, what would be the mandated level of coverage and spending, and how would that compare to what employers are paying now? And if the tax treatment of health coverage changes and employees are required to pay income and payroll taxes on their previously untaxed health benefits, one could expect demands from employees to "gross up" their wages to offset the new taxes. Another compensation effect is the cost of additional payroll taxes employers and employees will pay on the newly taxable health benefits.

No matter the outcome, employers and employees likely will have time to adjust to any legislative changes. Even under an expeditious route to health care reform, it would take years before such a program could be fully implemented. In addition, employers and employees should expect to see a series of health reform changes over time, rather than a single "big bang" comprehensive health reform.

The views of employers are actively being sought by policymakers in Washington, and it would increase the risk of counterproductive health reform legislation if employer voices are not heard during this upcoming national health reform debate. That debate will continue vigorously for months to come. Policy makers already are setting the stage, with a big spike in intensity expected shortly after the November elections.

[About the Author: Frank McArdle is a principal in the Washington office for Hewitt Associates, a global human resources consulting and outsourcing company.]]]> Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., and Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., have zeroed in on the importance of reducing health care costs as an important component of their respective health reform proposals to expand health insurance coverage.

Though neither candidate has spelled out specific details - and won't until after the new administration is up-and-running - the general contours of their approaches are pretty clear. There are some common elements in the candidates' approaches. But the differences between the two candidates are stark. The commonalities and distinctions in the candidates' visions of health care reform will not only affect the future of health care, insurance and benefits but could have implications for talent recruitment and retention. Specifics on each candidate's plan follow.

Both candidates' health plans will:

a) Expand access to affordable coverage.
b) Expand use of health information technology.
c) Emphasize wellness, prevention and disease management.
d) Focus on managing chronic illness through coordinated care.
e) Reduce medical errors, improve quality and outcomes.
f) Make health insurance portable.

They differ in the:

a) Role of government vs. private market.
b) Role of employer coverage.
c) Covering the uninsured.
d) Use of coverage mandates.

Universal Coverage and Cost Containment

Some policy analysts argue universal coverage would produce savings by including everyone in the health care system and thereby reduce cost shifting and uncompensated care.

McCain is a strong supporter of market-based approaches to health care reform and increasing competition in the health care sector. He advocates steps to make health care coverage more accessible and affordable for all Americans, but stops short of advocating policies aimed at reaching universal coverage, as opposed to universal access, which he does support. He has criticized the Democrats for advocating government mandates on businesses and has not endorsed a mandate for individuals to purchase coverage.

As part of his strategy for cost containment, McCain believes "families should be in charge of their health care dollars and have more control over their care." He wants to encourage and expand the benefits of health savings accounts for families. "When families are informed about medical choices, they are more capable of making their own decisions and often decide against unnecessary options. Health savings accounts take an important step in the direction of putting families in charge of what they pay for."

McCain also advocates greater competition among health insurers by allowing individuals in the U.S. to buy a health insurance policy from a health insurer licensed in another state, thereby expanding choices of health plans and, potentially, the ability to purchase less costly health coverage.

Obama favors an approach he and others commonly refer to as "shared responsibility" that includes a larger federal government role than McCain's proposal. Obama said, under his plan, a typical family would save up to $2,500 in health insurance premiums per year. That would partly happen by making health insurance universal, which he believes will reduce spending on uncompensated care.

Obama supports a pay-or-play approach. "Employers that do not offer meaningful coverage or make a meaningful contribution to the cost of quality health coverage for their employees will be required to contribute a percentage of payroll toward the costs of the national plan." The national plan would be a public plan, with benefits modeled on the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program (FEHBP). His proposal also would require all children have health care coverage and would allow young people up to age 25 to continue coverage through their parents' plans.

To provide Americans with additional options, the Obama plan would establish a National Health Insurance Exchange to help individuals who wish to purchase a private insurance plan. Through the Exchange, any individual could enroll in a new public plan or purchase an approved private plan, with income-based federal subsidies for those who need them. Insurers would have to issue every applicant a policy with community-rated premiums.

The Exchange would require that all the plans offered be at least as generous as the new public plan - with FEHBP-like benefits - and meet the same standards for quality and efficiency. Insurers would be required to justify an above-average premium increase to the Exchange. The Exchange would evaluate plans and make the differences among the participating plans transparent including the cost of services.

Obama's health care plan also proposes to lower health insurance premiums by having the federal government assume a portion of the costs for high-cost cases, in effect lowering the risk of catastrophic costs that now fall on insurers, self-insured employers and individuals.

Tax Treatment of Health Insurance

Many health economists argue the current federal tax law provision, which excludes the value of employer-provided health insurance from an employee's taxable income, has contributed to the rising cost of health coverage.

Under current tax provisions, employees receiving health coverage from an employer plan may pay for their portion of premiums with pretax contributions and receive the value of the health coverage provided by the employer tax free.

Neither federal income tax nor payroll taxes - such as Social Security and Medicare - apply. Economists who favor repeal of the tax calculation, including those who are advising McCain, argue an unlimited tax exclusion raises the cost of health coverage by encouraging generous benefit plans to which medical providers can increasingly charge higher prices. They argue one of the effects of this cycle is some consumers are priced out of affordable insurance, resulting in more uninsured individuals.

McCain proposes to create a level playing field in the individual and group health insurance markets by equalizing the tax incentives for individuals who buy health insurance coverage on their own with those tax incentives available for individuals who get their coverage through an employer plan.

To do that, McCain would replace the current, unlimited tax exclusion for employer-provided health care coverage with a tax credit available to all individuals, in the amount of $2,500 for individuals and $5,000 for families. Pretax employee contributions and health care flexible spending arrangements (FSAs) would conceivably be eliminated under this approach.

The change in tax treatment also means an employee could go outside the employer health plan and receive the same tax benefit for buying individual coverage. An employee could still take advantage of the tax credit to pay for employer-provided coverage, but the value of any employer benefits in excess of the $2,500/$5,000 tax credit would be subject to federal income and payroll taxes.

The tax revenue generated by eliminating the current exclusion is intended to offset the cost of providing the tax credits. But it would probably result in winners and losers. According to the Kaiser Family Foundation, in 2007, the average total cost of employer-sponsored health insurance coverage was $4,479 for single coverage and $12,106 for family coverage - well above the amount of the proposed tax credit.

Obama has to date proposed no changes in the current tax treatment of health insurance coverage.

Retiree Health Benefits

Neither candidate has put forward a detailed plan to control the spiraling costs of the federal Medicare program.

But the candidates have suggested a few measures that could arguably produce cost-savings for the program, though not everyone agrees. McCain has proposed the federally financed subsidy for Medicare Part D prescription drug coverage be reduced for higher-income beneficiaries, in effect requiring such beneficiaries to pay a greater share of the costs. This approach already has a precedent. In 2007, income-based premiums for higher-income beneficiaries became a requirement under Medicare Part B. Obama advocates having Medicare directly negotiate pharmaceutical prices for Medicare beneficiaries, something not permitted under current law.

Concerning early retirees who have not yet reached the age for Medicare eligibility, the candidates believe this group will benefit from their broader proposals to expand health coverage access. Obama's plan to generate a wide array of new public and private plan options would potentially create new sources for pre-65 retirees to purchase health insurance.

Today, pre-65 retirees without employer coverage have few good options to purchase affordable health insurance, and providing health benefits to pre-65 retirees is costly for employers who do provide coverage. McCain said his reforms would create more flexible health insurance options and, consequently, would "automatically bridge the time between retirement and Medicare eligibility."

Talent Management Implications

Will employers and employees experience lower health care costs if the candidates' health reform proposals are fulfilled?

Will either candidate's proposal result in actual cost reduction? Some health policy analysts assert neither candidate's proposal gets very far to contain spiraling health care costs. Despite assertions to the contrary, it is unlikely there will be actual reductions below current spending levels for employers. While both proposals contemplate federal subsidies, the larger such subsidies are, the more likely it could result in additional taxes to finance them.

Realistically, the best employers and employees can hope for is a reduction in the rate of increase in future health care costs. Even that is largely uncertain, and most large employers have yet to be persuaded. So far, most tend to believe health care reform may actually raise national health care costs, not reduce them.

Are the candidates' proposals politically feasible? It takes more than a president to reform the health care system.

The composition of the new Congress and reactions of stakeholders, including employers and employees, will influence how far the reforms advance. For example, is it politically feasible Congress will eliminate the current tax exclusion for employer-provided health benefits to finance a replacement health care tax credit? Changing this long-standing tax policy would represent a dramatic change, with potentially significant political repercussions.

Is it feasible to achieve savings from universal coverage - and reduced cost shifting - if there are no mandates to maintain or provide coverage, or if the only mandates fall on large employers? There is a very vigorous policy debate regarding both the advantages and harms mandates impose, and the pros and cons of an individual mandate vs. an employer mandate.

What could the implications be of both candidates' assertions that their health reform plans will result in new options for individuals to obtain health insurance outside of the employer setting?

Employers may want to think carefully about the role health benefits play in their overall compensation, recruitment and retention strategies. Depending on the circumstances, some employers may decide to encourage employees to exercise their choices in the individual market or to enroll in some other form of public plan or plan offered via a health exchange. Fortunately, employers need not make sudden decisions. There would be sufficient time to weigh options, opportunities and their implications in terms of an organization's ability to attract and recruit talent.

Employers also would have an opportunity to provide oversight and leverage the quality of health care provided to employees and to reduce the time and effort required by employees to navigate health coverage choices in a new system that may look and function differently from what has long been familiar.

Depending on employers' decisions about new coverage options, the role and prominence of health benefits in recruitment and retention could shift. Survey data has consistently shown employees value health benefits more than any other benefit provided by employers. If an employer were to cease providing health coverage and substitute a contribution to a public plan option or toward the purchase of an individual, non-employer commercial plan, would employees view such a contribution as being a health benefit? Would they value it to the degree they value current employer-provided coverage? Many likely would not.

Gains in overall workforce health and productivity due to employee wellness and prevention strategies could be lost. If employees largely or exclusively seek coverage outside of employer-sponsored plans, innovative employer programs that promote preventive care, wellness and chronic condition management might be difficult to replicate. In addition, if employees purchase coverage on the individual market that provides lesser benefits and higher cost sharing, they may be more likely to sometimes forego needed care, resulting in decreased productivity, more frequent absences from work and/or presenteeism, and increased short-term disability claims.

The same may be true if access to medical providers through the health plans employees choose is more restricted or more time-consuming to access. If there is no individual mandate to buy coverage and an employer ceases to sponsor a health plan, how many employees will choose to go without coverage, and would that translate into negative workplace productivity effects?

Workforce management issues also may arise. For example, if a company does not offer retiree health benefits today and more purchasing options were made available for individuals to retire prior to reaching the age of Medicare eligibility, that policy change could induce more early retirements. At a time when the retirement of the baby-boom generation already may lead to a shortage of experienced talent, this development could exacerbate the anticipated talent shortage, and employers may need to consider additional strategies to retain those employees.

If, as envisioned under both candidates' proposals, health care coverage does become portable from job to job, that also could have positive and negative talent management impacts. On one hand, for employees who do not change jobs now out of fear of losing their employer-provided health coverage, portability of health insurance would open the door for them to consider other employment possibilities. Conversely, companies may find more of their talent pool is willing to jump to another employer or competitor.

Finally, one could anticipate compensation effects. If employer-provided health coverage is mandated, what would be the mandated level of coverage and spending, and how would that compare to what employers are paying now? And if the tax treatment of health coverage changes and employees are required to pay income and payroll taxes on their previously untaxed health benefits, one could expect demands from employees to "gross up" their wages to offset the new taxes. Another compensation effect is the cost of additional payroll taxes employers and employees will pay on the newly taxable health benefits.

No matter the outcome, employers and employees likely will have time to adjust to any legislative changes. Even under an expeditious route to health care reform, it would take years before such a program could be fully implemented. In addition, employers and employees should expect to see a series of health reform changes over time, rather than a single "big bang" comprehensive health reform.

The views of employers are actively being sought by policymakers in Washington, and it would increase the risk of counterproductive health reform legislation if employer voices are not heard during this upcoming national health reform debate. That debate will continue vigorously for months to come. Policy makers already are setting the stage, with a big spike in intensity expected shortly after the November elections.

[About the Author: Frank McArdle is a principal in the Washington office for Hewitt Associates, a global human resources consulting and outsourcing company.]]]> http://www.hronline.info/showthread.php?tid=3 Wed, 29 Oct 2008 18:08:08 +0800 Justin http://www.hronline.info/showthread.php?tid=3
One bite of a McDonald's french fry tantalizes the taste buds and makes it impossible to eat just one. But how do McDonald's restaurants from Belgium to Egypt manage to produce the same tasty treat?

In partnership with NogginLabs, McDonald's deployed an e-learning module globally to teach employees how to create that perfect fry. This was part of a greater strategy to develop consistent global training. To determine what should be standardized, NogginLabs met with McDonald's leaders in early 2007 and identified french fries and the roles of crew trainer - members of the crew who teach others - and drive-thru for consistent, global training.

"There are a variety of reasons each one was selected. But french fries [were selected] because that is the most consistent product across the enterprise. It's really the gold standard of McDonald's," said Brian Knudson, CEO of NogginLabs. "The goals of the initiative were to have a consistent global message, reduce the seat time [and] decrease the time to competency."

After this consensus was reached, a performance-based e-learning module was developed, in which employees were able to practice the actual cooking process. Similar modules were developed for crew trainer and drive-thru.

"Think of it as an electronic flight simulator for making french fries," Knudson said. "You're actually moving the baskets in and out and going through the different steps. We had simulated experts that would pop in, so [if] you made a mistake, an expert would give you a story about what's appropriate at that point in time."

Because McDonald's has a complex audience in terms of age groups, it was important that the french fry e-learning program appeal to everyone. So a module that had a "deep respect" for workers was created. Learners were given a brief, to-the-point overview instead of an elaborate one, and then participants practiced in a fail-safe environment.

"You're allowed to make mistakes [and] do things out of order," Knudson said. "You're getting consistent coaching as you make those mistakes. [And] it reduces the time to competency in that you're not out there learning [from] your mistakes over days. In just a half-hour, folks [are] given what they need to go on the floor and make fries."

Knudson believes an investment in e-learning should ultimately be an investment in behavior change.

"If it's not changing behaviors, it's not learning - it's a communication piece," he explained. "If it's a sales course, have sales actually improved? If they haven't changed, then I would evaluate the type of e-learning that's being built."

McDonald's did an extensive Kirkpatrick Level 3 analysis, and at a high level, it found that the e-learning modules worked and behavior was changing.

"Part of this project was [asking], 'What is possible in e-learning? How far can we get people in a very short period of time?'" Knudson said. "We were really pushing the envelope on performance."

[About the Author: Lindsay Edmonds Wickman is an associate editor for Chief Learning Officer magazine.]]]>
One bite of a McDonald's french fry tantalizes the taste buds and makes it impossible to eat just one. But how do McDonald's restaurants from Belgium to Egypt manage to produce the same tasty treat?

In partnership with NogginLabs, McDonald's deployed an e-learning module globally to teach employees how to create that perfect fry. This was part of a greater strategy to develop consistent global training. To determine what should be standardized, NogginLabs met with McDonald's leaders in early 2007 and identified french fries and the roles of crew trainer - members of the crew who teach others - and drive-thru for consistent, global training.

"There are a variety of reasons each one was selected. But french fries [were selected] because that is the most consistent product across the enterprise. It's really the gold standard of McDonald's," said Brian Knudson, CEO of NogginLabs. "The goals of the initiative were to have a consistent global message, reduce the seat time [and] decrease the time to competency."

After this consensus was reached, a performance-based e-learning module was developed, in which employees were able to practice the actual cooking process. Similar modules were developed for crew trainer and drive-thru.

"Think of it as an electronic flight simulator for making french fries," Knudson said. "You're actually moving the baskets in and out and going through the different steps. We had simulated experts that would pop in, so [if] you made a mistake, an expert would give you a story about what's appropriate at that point in time."

Because McDonald's has a complex audience in terms of age groups, it was important that the french fry e-learning program appeal to everyone. So a module that had a "deep respect" for workers was created. Learners were given a brief, to-the-point overview instead of an elaborate one, and then participants practiced in a fail-safe environment.

"You're allowed to make mistakes [and] do things out of order," Knudson said. "You're getting consistent coaching as you make those mistakes. [And] it reduces the time to competency in that you're not out there learning [from] your mistakes over days. In just a half-hour, folks [are] given what they need to go on the floor and make fries."

Knudson believes an investment in e-learning should ultimately be an investment in behavior change.

"If it's not changing behaviors, it's not learning - it's a communication piece," he explained. "If it's a sales course, have sales actually improved? If they haven't changed, then I would evaluate the type of e-learning that's being built."

McDonald's did an extensive Kirkpatrick Level 3 analysis, and at a high level, it found that the e-learning modules worked and behavior was changing.

"Part of this project was [asking], 'What is possible in e-learning? How far can we get people in a very short period of time?'" Knudson said. "We were really pushing the envelope on performance."

[About the Author: Lindsay Edmonds Wickman is an associate editor for Chief Learning Officer magazine.]]]> http://www.hronline.info/showthread.php?tid=2 Wed, 29 Oct 2008 18:00:48 +0800 Justin http://www.hronline.info/showthread.php?tid=2 A not-so-old 'Retired Brigadier decides to go on a hunting safari in Gir Forest, taking with him for company his faithful, old Pomeranian named 'Snoopy'.

While roaming around the forest, the old Snoopy starts chasing rabbits and before long, discovers that he's lost. Wandering about, he notices a leopard heading rapidly in his direction, clearly to grab lunch.

Old Snoopy thinks, 'Oh, no! I'm in deep trouble now!' Noticing some bones on the ground close by, he immediately settles down to chewing on the bones with his back to the approaching big cat.

Just as the leopard is about to leap, old Snoopy exclaims loudly, 'Boy, that was one delicious leopard! I wonder if there are any more around here?'

Hearing this, the young leopard halts his attack in mid-strike, a look of terror comes over him and he shrinks away into the trees. 'Whew!', says the leopard, 'That was close! That old Snoopy nearly had me!'

Meanwhile, a monkey who had been watching the whole scene from a nearby tree, figures he can put this knowledge to good use and trade it for protection from the leopard. So off he goes, but old Snoopy sees him heading after the leopard with great speed, and figures that something must be up.

The monkey soon catches up with the leopard, spills the beans and strikes a deal for himself with the leopard. The young leopard is furious at being made a fool of and says, 'Here, monkey, hop on my back and see what's going to happen to that conniving canine!

Now, old Snoopy sees the leopard coming with the monkey on his back and thinks, 'What am I going to do now?', but instead of running, the dog sits down with his back to his attackers, pretending he hasn't seen them yet, and just when they get close enough to hear, old Snoopy says... 'Where's that damn monkey? I sent him off an hour ago to bring me another leopard!']]> A not-so-old 'Retired Brigadier decides to go on a hunting safari in Gir Forest, taking with him for company his faithful, old Pomeranian named 'Snoopy'.

While roaming around the forest, the old Snoopy starts chasing rabbits and before long, discovers that he's lost. Wandering about, he notices a leopard heading rapidly in his direction, clearly to grab lunch.

Old Snoopy thinks, 'Oh, no! I'm in deep trouble now!' Noticing some bones on the ground close by, he immediately settles down to chewing on the bones with his back to the approaching big cat.

Just as the leopard is about to leap, old Snoopy exclaims loudly, 'Boy, that was one delicious leopard! I wonder if there are any more around here?'

Hearing this, the young leopard halts his attack in mid-strike, a look of terror comes over him and he shrinks away into the trees. 'Whew!', says the leopard, 'That was close! That old Snoopy nearly had me!'

Meanwhile, a monkey who had been watching the whole scene from a nearby tree, figures he can put this knowledge to good use and trade it for protection from the leopard. So off he goes, but old Snoopy sees him heading after the leopard with great speed, and figures that something must be up.

The monkey soon catches up with the leopard, spills the beans and strikes a deal for himself with the leopard. The young leopard is furious at being made a fool of and says, 'Here, monkey, hop on my back and see what's going to happen to that conniving canine!

Now, old Snoopy sees the leopard coming with the monkey on his back and thinks, 'What am I going to do now?', but instead of running, the dog sits down with his back to his attackers, pretending he hasn't seen them yet, and just when they get close enough to hear, old Snoopy says... 'Where's that damn monkey? I sent him off an hour ago to bring me another leopard!']]> http://www.hronline.info/showthread.php?tid=1 Wed, 29 Oct 2008 16:33:16 +0800 Justin http://www.hronline.info/showthread.php?tid=1
Welcome to Hr Online Forum. This forum is created to allow HR Partitioners all around Malaysia to communicate and share information with each other. The main aim is to gather all HR Partitioners and share information, strategies, latest updates and on-going in the world of Human Resource.

Hope that this forum would bring you to a new level of HR.]]>
Welcome to Hr Online Forum. This forum is created to allow HR Partitioners all around Malaysia to communicate and share information with each other. The main aim is to gather all HR Partitioners and share information, strategies, latest updates and on-going in the world of Human Resource.

Hope that this forum would bring you to a new level of HR.]]>